|
Post by sneakers (Metro Houston) on Apr 16, 2018 13:29:26 GMT -5
so far i have yet to see anyone posting photos to this site. where are they posting them and what are they? The cat thread has pictures of cats, the dog thread has pictures of dogs, the "What did you wear today?" thread has pictures of apparel, the "Blood Donation" thread has a number of pictures taken at blood banks... Important enough for the original poster to post them. Although after I learned how to link pictures from an external site and the fact we're running out of file space, I've been linking my pictures from file storage on my non-GBO Website. Over there, I have more than a gigabyte of file space available.
|
|
|
Post by sneakers (Metro Houston) on Apr 16, 2018 20:05:31 GMT -5
Found a "feature" of the GBO forum software:
I deleted a number of attachments and replaced them with files on my non-GBO Website. I went in the "Attachments" area and deleted the attachment. I deleted over 3 MB of attachments. Yet the "Photo Attachment Storage Status" number does not change.
Sounds like something that a wizard needs to look at.
|
|
|
Post by picturefreak on Apr 16, 2018 21:05:04 GMT -5
As I suspect, Camp needs to edit it as witnessed by the "stoage" typo earlier - it's not fixed automatically, apparently.
|
|
|
Post by sneakers (Metro Houston) on Apr 16, 2018 22:02:58 GMT -5
There's now 12 MB free. Probably enough for those who are technophobes and/or don't have a handy Web presence available. Just as long as we don't start uploading pictures at maximum resolution from my new 20 megapixel Canon that creates 5 MB JPEG files. I can say, when I get busy updating my non-GBO Website, I'll be able to throw away a lot of pixels to reasonably fit the data on a Web page!
|
|
|
Post by CampKohler (Sacramento CA) on Apr 16, 2018 22:10:25 GMT -5
Unlike in the other world, you don't have to guess.The number left is just typed into a page footer. I have been busy lately, but I will dill to be more trygelent. The usage has decreased significantly in the last few days.
It is surprising the number of small (under 10K) pix there are and how few over 500K. An article on how to attach "small boys" is in order. I am still mulling over the principles of pix management. Some people use Flickr and others, but I haven't had time for serious investigation. But I will starting next Friday. I used Photobucket and so have to replace them.
|
|
|
Post by fonegirl on Apr 16, 2018 22:33:21 GMT -5
I could have sworn that there was only "1 MB out of 200 left" when I started reading 30 minutes ago. Now it says "12 MB". Either we are making progress, or I read it wrong 30 minutes ago.
|
|
|
Post by picturefreak on Apr 16, 2018 23:18:48 GMT -5
Again CampKohler needs to edit the footer manually. A computer program would be needed to automatically change it. At least 12MB is better now, though that 1MB number has been up for a few days (feels like we made cleared up 4MB/day or something like that.)
|
|
les
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by les on Apr 18, 2018 6:45:32 GMT -5
If I post any photos, I'll have it on my flickr site and will just refer to it. SO it can be viewed here, but not actually hosted or uploaded here.
|
|
2parrots
New Member
Just became a member using the same name as I used in GoneBad .Loved the forums & whiteboards .
Posts: 7
|
Post by 2parrots on Apr 18, 2018 7:30:31 GMT -5
No problem with deleting after 36-48 hours as most people only read the latest posts anyway.
|
|
TomB
Full Member
Posts: 291
|
Post by TomB on Apr 19, 2018 6:00:06 GMT -5
✔️
|
|
juniorfan
Full Member
Friendly fire isn't
Posts: 304
|
Post by juniorfan on Apr 19, 2018 7:20:37 GMT -5
I like the idea of deleting the photos after whatever time period suggested.
As mentioned already, the photo's have been viewed after a certain amount of time, so why not delete them?
I'm good with it.
|
|
|
Post by CampKohler (Sacramento CA) on Apr 19, 2018 9:58:56 GMT -5
So now it comes down to (as it always does) philosophy. Let's suppose a thread is started, and one of it's important ingredients is a photo relevant to the point of the thread. Not just a "Here is one of the fine days we had at the beach"-type photos, any one of which would do to illustrate the point of the thread, but a photo that is a key specific illustration of the point, say, "Here is a photograph of Mr. Trump and Ms. Daniels mutually entertaining themselves before the presidential election. Note how certain parts of Ms. Daniels are more stormy than others."
The former photo, while being illustrative, may not be considered critical, because the reader can almost imagine himself behind the camera and pushing the shutter release himself (even if he has never personally owned his own tropical island to which his 100-foot yacht has imported all the losing contestants of the Miss America pageant for a few days of heart-felt consolation partying). Whereas it would be a disservice to readers if the latter photo, being critically essential to the point of the thread, were to be simply aged out of existence. These examples, while they may be far fetched, illustrate that there is an element of editorialization that must be considered that, uh, trumps creating simple rules.
If one had a devious mind, one could even take advantage of such a simple rule by pretending that the aged-out (and supposedly deleted) photo depicted some shocking situation supporting the thread's point, when in fact there was never posted a photo at all. It would look like photographic evidence existed at one time, but, sorry, it was two weeks old and had to go. But none of us would do such a frightful thing, would we? Of course not.
|
|
|
Post by picturefreak on Apr 19, 2018 12:27:37 GMT -5
Not sure if that was meant as a switch-a-roo importance but I'd say pictures that one generated themselves that have few or no other copies floating around have value stored here versus others that have copies everywhere - don't need to keep yet another copy around.
|
|
|
Post by Chris46 on Apr 22, 2018 22:27:59 GMT -5
I doubt very much if anybody would really think its worth keeping pictures more than a week old and/or paying $3/month (and easily more), so I'm in favor of deleting pics after a few days or a week, and reducing their size to start with.
Posts older than six months (or less) should be eliminated also.
On the other "not to be mentioned" website, people had 100's pages of their old posts. That's just crazy ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by picturefreak on Apr 22, 2018 23:34:12 GMT -5
There is a way for the admins to auto-prune posts indiscriminately right? The "old site" only kept like 200 posts. Some of the games and misc posts don't deserve saving 200 posts...
|
|